uname@pyuxqq.UUCP (uname) (01/31/84)
Several people in net.followup recommended that those who don't wear shoulder belts, etc should get reduced/no insurance payments if they are hurt. I suggest that we take this idea further and deny blue-cross/medicade payments to smokers when they need lung cancer operations. And how about denying payment to those who ate fatty foods all their life and then get heart attacks, or need expensive bypass operations. Maybe pedestrians who get hit by an auto should get reduced payments cause they were not wearing a helmet. Additionally, anyone who accidently touches a worn electric cord shouldn't be able to get blue-cross payments cause they weren't wearing rubber gloves. ENOUGH SAID!
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (01/31/84)
Why not deny you your job because you make stupid remarks?
tjt@kobold.UUCP (02/02/84)
Well, well! pyuxqq!uname (??) has given us another *reductio ad
absurdum* argument. Taken point by point:
... those who don't wear shoulder belts, etc should get reduced/no
insurance payments if they are hurt.
Fine with me, although they should have the option to pay higher
premiums beforehand.
... deny blue-cross/medicade payments to smokers when they need
lung cancer operations.
For blue-cross and other private health insurance, the answer is
simple: require higher premiums. It is already common practice to get
reduced life and fire insurance premiums if you don't smoke. I don't
know about health insurance, but it would make sense. Government
sponsored insurance (medicaid/medicare) is more of a problem though
since nobody pays a premium for this (they are called "taxes" instead).
And how about denying payment to those who ate fatty foods all
their life and then get heart attacks, or need expensive bypass
operations.
Again, the sensible way to handle this would be by requiring increased
premiums. I leave it to you to define what constitutes excessively
fatty foods especially as there is some evidence that this varies
significantly with the individual.
Maybe pedestrians who get hit by an auto should get reduced payments
cause they were not wearing a helmet. Additionally, anyone who
accidently touches a worn electric cord shouldn't be able to get
blue-cross payments cause they weren't wearing rubber gloves.
This is where things get ridiculous. Why? Primarily because the cost
of these kinds of accidents is much, much less than automobile
accidents, lung cancer or heart attacks (not necessarily the cost of
any individual accident, but the total cost of all such accidents).
In all these situations, I'm sure that the insurance companies aren't
losing money: it's the people paying higher premiums to subsidize the
assumed risks of others that lose. I think that the existence of
"non-smoker" discounts shows that the insurance companies are willing
to apportion some of the cost according to assumed risk.
I'll take my non-smoking and seat-belt discounts, pay extra for junk
food and let the net.veggies get a rebate for their lowfat diet.
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Westford MA
...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!tjt (617) 692-6200 x275tjt@kobold.UUCP (02/02/84)
..!pyuxa!wetcw asks:
Why not deny you your job because you make stupid remarks?
Well, if those remarks demonstrate technical incompetence, you ought
to lose your job.
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Westford MA
...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!tjt (617) 692-6200 x275blesch@whuxj.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (02/02/84)
In theory, it's a great idea to reduce or deny insurance benefits to those who don't wear seatbelts. BUT -- I can't count the number of times I, a faithful seatbelt wearer, have climbed into a friend's car or even into a commercial car (e.g. the airline limo) and found that the belts have irretrievably vanished behind the seat cushion, or they have been intentionally disabled. I remember one person who fully pulled the belt out of the retractor and tied it into an almost infinite number of knots so that it would never retract, and therefore never cause the reminder buzzer to buzz! So, yes, there are times when seatbelt wearers may not be able to wear a seatbelt thru no fault of their own. Should I be denied insurance payments if my airport limo crashes and I'm not belted in, because the belt was nowhere to be found? Carl Blesch
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (02/02/84)
One motivation for buying insurance is to protect one from one's own negligence. Thus, though I feel not wearing a seat belt should be considered negligent, I don't think that should deny insurance coverage any more than any other kind of negligence. I have a better idea. New Jersey (and other states as well, I think) has a rule that if you hit someone else's tail it's your fault regardless of how it happened. One might similarly argue that if you are involved in an accident that injures someone not wearing a seat belt, that person is at fault and must collect from his/her own insurance company, not yours. Getting into an accident while not wearing a seat belt would thus have the same sort of effect on your future rates as any other accident that is considered to be your fault.